The issue with this assumption, is that we all need to destroy existence, in order to maintain existence, and everything is constantly being destroyed and created. Camus posed it best: The absurdity of life.

However, I do think that ethics does revolve around preservation of the physical form (however absurd it may seem), but since everyone wants to preserve their own physical being, what may be ethical for one person may be quite unethical for another. Hence, conflicts and wars. (Heraclitus).

Rich

Hello Rich, In all due respect that is not what he is saying, that is what you are assuming he is saying based on your definitions based on your knowledge and your life experiences. That's what assumptions are. That's what confuses communication. What he is saying is in our desire to preserve life we fail to live that life. Life only exist in the immediate present. That is life. What will happen in the next two seconds doesn't exist yet. In other words the future does not exist, for when we step into it, it becomes the present and life. This is the paradox. When we venture in to that crystal ball to determine in the present that which we "want" to occur in that none existent future we alter those mental resources and senses that are so very needed to enjoy life in the now. In other words the mind becomes preoccupied in that you are commanding of it that which does not exist to "preserve" that life. The more we ponder how to preserve it the more the mind is distracted from what the brain has store in memory, which creates a disfunction of the brain and hence the breakdown of the body. What we hold in memory is the past and to ascertain that information that will allow us to make those erroneous predictions as to what we must do in the present to plan the future, is flawed because the past is flawed. IMO, what he is saying when we search the past to determine the future we contaminate the river of life down the road and the water gets muddier and muddier. (refering to the link you provided)

William

Identify, please correct me if I am misinterpreted what you were saying.

The problem is that it is difficult to prove the universal maxim that "existence is the universal good." And suppose that this is somewhat true, what about a case in which a dangerous animal attacks me? In this case, one must judge which existence is "more good" than the other, in which case the "universal" axiom is not quite as universal as it seems at first.

Hmmm ... so that is what he is saying? Well, that is sure not what I got out of it.

Rich

Thanks for the views. To Rich and William, I'll try to clarify what I mean by existence. For simplicities sake, assume an atom is the smallest particle of matter. We know atoms are building blocks. If you organize them a particular way, they interact as a whole in a different way then they do an as an individual. This new interaction is a new existence.

However, at the core, all existence is built out of these building blocks. When these "Lego Castles" are broken apart, they revert back to atoms, the atoms themselves are not destroyed (smallest particle). Thus, when an existence built of atoms is destroyed, the interaction of the building is destroyed while the blocks remain.

This is important because the potential for atoms is to always be built into something greater. Thus, the potential for atoms in their combinations would seem infinite. If I break a house down, I do not necessarily destroy the potential of the atoms. In fact, breaking them down makes them into different parts, with different ways of interacting then as a whole, and thus as different individual existences.

Therefore when referring to non-living matter, there is no evil or lack of existence in an individual composite breaking down or reforming. All that is happening is change. The only way in which it would be "wrong" for a change to happen, would be if the atoms became finite in potential in what they could be. Perhaps an atom flying off into an infinite vacuum, never to be heard from again. This would seem worse then its coexistence with other atoms, and the potential and actual existences which would form. This is an existential morality when applied to non-living matter.

Also rich, I mentioned the cycle of life between plants and animals, and why the "absurdity" of death was necessary. The cycle actually prolongs life, and existence, as a whole, so would be better then those particular existences being without the cycle of death. (Post continued on the value of life's existence over inanimate matter)

TLDR:Non-life is a combination of building blocks, infinitely varied in their combinations, the destruction of one forms another. As long as the potential to build infinitely is not disrupted, the "destruction" (change) in matter is neither beneficial or detrimental to existence as a whole.

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------

Clarification of life's value over non-life: Non-life is infinitely varied, and an infinite potential. Life however is:

1. A self-sustaining multitude of chemical reactions. This is an incredible series of interactions within a small span of space, and thus more focused existence.

2. Self-replicating. The only easy way for life to continue is through itself. Eliminate all life, and it is hard to get it back.

While the destruction of something inanimate gives way to something further inanimate, the destruction of life (unless absorbed by another life) generally reverts to a potential of the inanimate, or a lower state of interactions, and thus existence.

To Jgweed, I do not deny that the attacking of a dangerous animal presents the question, "Which is the more valued existence?" Yet, this does not deny that there is a universal maxim that, "existence is good", only perhaps pointing to the difficulty in answering such a question.

I believe I could give the answer to such a question using a universal value of, "Greater existence is good", but the question of the animal attack must be specific. First, there is the assumption that intelligent life is more existent then "unintelligent life".

If we go with this assumption: A tiger leaps at me as I'm alone in the woods. I have a gun, and I know how to use it. I protect myself as I exist in a greater way then the tiger.

Second scenario: A tiger leaps at me as I'm alone in the woods. I have a powerful tazer, and a gun on me. I can grab one, and both would be equally effective at stopping the tiger. Using the gun would be good, but using the tazer would be better. Though both actions are good, a conscious intelligent mind can tell the difference in the level of existence, which would result, and use the tazer.

Fun scenario: A tiger leaps at me as I'm alone in the woods. This tiger is a specially bred genetic tiger, one of a kind, which contains antibodies which, when injected into humans, cure the AIDS virus. This tiger is not reproducible, and upon death, the antibodies will quickly deteriorate. (I have an imagination, that's for sure) I have a gun. If I kill the tiger, I save myself, but thousands of people will die before another cure is found. Though I may take other actions, killing the tiger in this instance would seem wrong. What do you think?

Identity,
Try and and associate your gifted logic to that of a jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces are good old people. The only problem is we don't know what the picture on the box looks like and there are no two pieces to the puzzle that are identical. Rather than using atoms and legos. If that is possible? If not tell me what is missing in the logic. What must we to to put the puzzle together?
Thanks,
William

I don't believe any system of ethics is anything other than a fictional abstraction, or, at best, one possible utility function out of many alternatives.

Since death is inevitable, not matter how little or how much is consume, it is first necessary, I think, to consider the absurdity of life (Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus).

But whatever we conclude, there will be people who will consume more than you think is necessary, and there will be people who will have less than is necessary. So what do you? Call them unethical? Suppose, they insist that, that what they consume is exactly correct (try to take away a Hummer from some dude). Suppose, I feel that you are consuming too much (most humans and dogs in the U.S. do)? Then what. Measuring, the least amount (whatever that might be), necessary to preserver life (for what reason?), is a tough thing to wrap around and call ethical.

Rich

To William, I'm not sure what you're asking. The only thing I seem to get is, I'm not being clear somewhere. That I don't doubt at all, and apologize. =) This is a very rough synopsis of a paper I've been working on for a while, and as such, my attempt was to get some main ideas out there, and explore as the questions came up. Was my analogy of legos simply poor? If you can further clarify my lack of clarity, I'll gladly try to fix it up. =P (I can't resist smilys)

To Oden, why do you believe there is no system of ethics? If ethics is defined as, "The way a person should act", yet you believe there is no particular way a person should act, then the problem of "nazism, baby killin'," and all the other extreme ideas come your way. Further, on my end, if you truly believe that no way of acting is better than another, then what would be the reason to try and persuade others of this? Maybe you're not persuading, but just stating a fact in your eyes.

Rich, the idea of existence ethics goes beyond one single life, but includes all of, well, existence. One life may die, yet if other lives continue, this would seem to be a good thing. There are a couple of arguments for death as being good in a cycle, and I'll address them in another post if you want. (This one is already long enough!)

As for the difficulty of assessing moral situations, or telling people that what they are doing is immoral, that once again, is not an argument against a universal morality. I do not believe killing a woman for adultury is moral, but some cultures believe that to be so. If existence can be concretely put down and calculated, you allow an objective form of argumentation. I have a mathematical example of a moral situation, which I will put down in the next post. The important thing to take away is, an existential morality should be objective, and not subject simply to feelings. Two different people should be able to come together, examine the argument, and rationally show that choice A results in more existence then choice B. Once again, I'll go into greater detail in a later post.

It may be that people can agree that A results in more (or enhanced) existence than does making choice B, but isn't this agreement a calculus, and are we not left with some uncertainty about whether more existence is morally superior to some other end? If so, then we must consider the possibility that an existential ethics is not objective at all.

Here lies the issue,

If we are trying to preserve existence, well we are killing off existence (of all types) all the time to preserve existence. Whose existence is more worthwhile? I don't see how one can be objective about this. Who's existence will have to perish in order to continue other existence? Should an animal perish for a human. Should a plant perish for an animal. Who is to decide what is ethical and what is not. This is perilous line of thinking. Wars have been fought over this, in which case less existence in order to preserve some existence. How much existence should perish to justify perpetuating some other existence - especially since what ever is left is eventually going to die anyway.

I think Camus was right. Life is Absurd and we just have to deal with it.

Rich

Relevant to your first question is the following statement of core values from The Institute for Global Ethics:

As an institution dedicated to the advancement of ethics, our core values are important to identify and imperative to adhere to in all we do. Through our research, we have identified five core ethical values that show up in any human culture, regardless of race, age, religious affiliation, gender, or nationality. As such, we strive always to be:

• Honest and truthful in all our dealings
  
• Responsible and accountable in every transaction
  
• Fair and equitable in each relationship
  
• Respectful and mindful of the dignity of every individual
  
• Compassionate and caring in each situation
  

Here is a link to their home page: Institute for Global Ethics: Promoting Ethical Action in a Global Context

Perhaps we already have a universal ethics; it is just a matter of the world's people becoming conscious of it. And yes, dilemmas arise when these values are in conflict, when it is difficult to choose among goods. The Institute calls them "Right vs. right dilemmas" and has a large division of their website devoted to them. And yes, I am aware that the word "fair" has philoosophical problems when we go to apply it -- because it is a vague word.

Still and all, I hope this information is helpful to the quest.

See also the booklet, LIVING THE GOOD LIFE for further ideas on how to universalize ethics:
http://tinyurl.com/24swmd


As to your second point about a definition for the field of ethics, at the very top of this page a conventional definition is offered, which informs us that Ethics concerns values, moral standards, good, right - and their opposites - and the conduct that would result from a study and comprehension of the concepts mentioned. ------All we need now is a meta-ethics which rigorously defines these terms, making them a part of a coherent frame-of-reference, a paradigm, a set of models employing Logic, and we are on our way!

Hey Rich, awesome points. It IS difficult to get down and start identifying greater existence. However, here are a few points with which to start. The only way to discover these points is to reasonably discuss with other people, get some differing viewpoints, and try to find an objective solution. I still find this better then a subjective viewpoint, as the problems you have stated with this attempted objective viewpoint, apply to the subjective. Unfortunately, the subjective could only supply a true moral ethics through luck, while an objective attempt at least has more stability and reason on its side. What do you think of these proposals?

1. Total existence.

This would be the number of actual existences, or things which can interact in total. A differing existence, is that, when taken as a whole, will interact differently with objects, then another whole. In basic, a lawnmower is a different existence then a hairdryer. Each have very specifically different sets of interactions. A little more in depth, Lawnmower 1 is different then lawnmower 2 due to different atomic makeup, even though their the same model.

2. Potential existence

This is what the current existence can potentially interact as. If there was an existence isolated from all other existence forever, this would be considered worse then an existence with the ability to interact with 5 other existences. This is because the interaction with a different existence, creates an active existence at that moment, the differing interaction then the existence as simply self-existing.

These two basic ideas are where an established measuring tool can begin. I'll demonstrate how. (Get ready, long, look at TLDR for inspiration to read it. =P)

An incredibly strong submarine, manned by ten people, has sunk to the bottom of the ocean. The stresses of the submarine are holding up against the outside, the problem is, there is only enough oxygen left for ten people for one hour. You are one of those people. You could easily kill the other people and live for ten hours. Further, as the submarine is at the bottom of the ocean, it will soon be destroyed and all evidence of what happened under water will never be seen by anyone. Which is more moral, for you to kill the other people and live for ten hours, or to let the other people live and live for one hour, or kill yourself, and let the other nine people live for longer than an hour?


This scenario demonstrates a perfect example of existential morality. There is no one to witness your murder. We could even go further and ensure that if you killed the others, there would be no pain for them. You could go further and state the nine WANT you to kill them. They will be happy dieing, and you will be happy living. There are no witnesses, there will be no guilt. Your conscience will be completely free from your actions. Even if all of these things occur, and all subjective objections are eliminated, I will demonstrate it is still wrong to kill those 9 other people.



The complexities of humanity are too numerous to address. However, we can simplify the problem with the assumption that there are equivalancies as well as variables in existence. First, we'll assume that every single human on the boat is worth equivalent existence. Perhaps there might be a variation here and there due to different factors, but within the existence of a human as a whole, this slight variations of existence are negligible.
With humans equaling equivalent existence, we can translate each human into a number. In the most simple case I can think of, each human will represent a dot within the submarine. The walls and air of the submarine are constants in both the murderer and the living cases. There are two variables then. The number of dots in an hour, and the actions those dots can make in an hour.



This allows us to calculate the relative existence. Existence can be calculated as a function of time. One existence over ten hours is ten existence, or "Ex" for short. Ten existences over one hour would be 10 ex as well. As we can see, if we simply calculated the existence of the dots without regards to their actions, it would be no more or less moral for one dot to exist for ten hours over ten dots existing for one hour. 10 dots*1 hour=10ex 1 dot*10 hours=10ex.



Now however, we must address the actions of the dots. Making this as simple as possible, each dot can interact with one other dot. We'll say this interaction is a simple touch. If each dot touches another within that hour, then ten more existences are produced. It is obvious that these existences are not the same equivalency to the existences of the dots, but we'll see why this is o.k.



Now let us take the lone dot in the room for ten hours. We'll say when another dot is "killed" it can no longer be interacted with (Demonstrating the loss of live interaction) There is no dot for the lone dot to touch. As such, the most interaction the lone dot can take is zero in their 10 hours. The most interaction the 10 dots could take in one hour is 10. At this point, if even one of the 10 dots "touches" another dot, it would be more existence for the ten to exist, then the lone dot. The relevant existence of the touching means it is better if there are ten dots in a room together for one hour versus one lone dot in a room for ten hours.


Let us go further with this idea. We have only looked at relative actual existence, not relative potential existence. Let us say each dot has the potential to touch another within that hour. Further, potential existence includes which particular dot another dot touches. There are many possibilities that arise from this. In fact, in that hour, the potential existence would be, 10! (10X9X8...), or 3,628,800 potential touches between all ten dots. If we take the lone dot, the relative potential existence is...zero.


From this then, it would seem it is better to have 10 dots in a room for one hour then 1 dot in a room for 1 hour. In fact, the one dot would have to live long enough to fulfill the actual and potential existence of the ten dots existing for one hour before the lone dot could be equivalent existence.


Anyway you look at it, that's longer then ten hours for the lone dot, and in the end, it would always be immoral for the lone dot to kill the other 9 dots. From this very simple model, we have learned we can utilize relative existence, both potentially and actually. However, there is a very severe problem with this model.



How can we compare the worth of existence between the existence of the dots themselves, their actions, and their potential existence? These concerns are only important if we are trying to find equivlency between different measurements of existence. If I was trying to discover which was more existence, 30 units of an action versus 5,000,000 potential actions, I'm not quite sure how to compare the two.



Fortunately, the submarine example does not require this consideration. We discover that the dots existences are the same, yet the actions and potential actions of the ten dots existing for an hour are greater than the one dot existing for ten hours. As we are not trying to find an equivalence between the two sets of dots, but simply which creates more total existence, we have the answer that the ten dots existing for one hour would be more existence then the one dot existing for one hour.


How well does this dot problem translate into a submarine full of people? Simply translate the "touching" into conversing. The end result is the same. Yet people do more then talk. They think, they feel, they breath. All of these things dissappear once they are dead. As such, the immorality of killing 9 others, would seem to be an incredible loss for the slight gain of an hour. Even the sacrifice of one person so the others can survive slightly longer is wrong. The potential existence drops from 3,628,800 (10!)to slightly more then (9!) 36,288. As at the least the existence of the people remaining does not increase, it would be better for the dot to live the hour with everyone else, at least to ensure a greater potential existence.



With this, we see that a moral issues can be claimed in mathematical terms, an objective standing. At least in very basic circumstances, this can be an objective tool which allows us to state, "This is wrong," or, "This is right." Further, the mathematical morality seems to follow our moral intuitions, while furthering why we feel this way at an intellectual level.




TLDR: The proposal of an existential morality allows the proposal of objective mathematical calculations for particular moral instances.

Hi again Identify,

I read your post, and I think I understand what you are saying, but it would help, if you could briefly (maybe with bullet points), declare your assumptions. I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying. I believe that there may be substantial issues with your assumptions that you may want to re-look.

Thanks.

Rich

No, absolutely not. You were being very clear. I was wondering if is could be applied to a puzzle as to human building blocks and that unity we should have is all. You did a great job.
William

Sounds good to me. I like the unity and puzzle idea if the unity relates to an understanding that we're all in this existence together.